Thanks for your email. I believe that the upcoming election is an important one and all Americans should care about the issues involved.
I'm concerned most, this election cycle, about the rise of federal power, particularly executive power, that we've seen in huge measure from Clinton and G.W. Bush. I'm concerned that Huckabee won't bring us back toward federalism. In the last (Oct 9) debate, he said that he would, if necessary, act to prevent a perceived terrorist threat even if Congress specifically denied authorization - as if Congress wasn't worthy of making that decision. That's the thinking that got us into our current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, thinking that the White House has the only good ideas and answers. Then there's the constitutional problem of bypassing the check and balance provided by Congress.
In a brief examination, I don't see any discussion on Huckabee's website of states' rights or federalism, and his only mention of the Constitution is in reference to the second amendment.
I would suggest Ron Paul as a candidate who is committed to the the entire constitution, federalism and limited government, and is a strong Christian. I don't agree with all of his opinions, including his support for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but I believe a return to federalism is the most important issue facing the federal government today.
God bless,
David
Ron Paul supports morality, and is a strong Christian himself. He believes that it is generally up to the states occasionally, and ultimately the individual, not the federal government, to enforce morality. Paul is strongly pro-life and opposes Roe v Wade on constitutional grounds.
After writing my email, I came to a realization: Mike Huckabee isn't that different from George W. Bush! Let's compare campaign positions:
Bush: Campaigned on and passed tax cuts
Huckabee: Campaigning on the Fair Tax
B: Ignores restrictions on executive power
when he deems it necessary
H: Willing to do the same
B: Restore moral integrity to presidency
and nation
H: Restore moral integrity to nation
B: Encouraging "compassionate conservatism"
H: encouraging individual effort
B:Pro-life
H:Vocally pro-life
B: Would appoint conservative
federal judges
H: No obvious opinion, pro-2nd amendment
B: Redefined definition of torture to exclude what he deemed necessary/useful, though that torture is given to some who are innocent, and torture can supply bad intelligence.
H: Opposes torture
There are some areas of difference. Huckabee opposes anything even close to amnesty for illegal immigrants (so does Paul). Huckabee supports letting states choose their own standards for education, which would partially rectify one of the biggest problems with Bush's No Child Left Behind act. Paul, on the other hand, would seek to abolish the Dept. of Education and its often counterproductive programs altogether. Huckabee would not use of torture on detainees, something Bush has allowed by using clever definitions of the word. I'm going to be optimistic and assume power and an insular white house wouldn't go to Huckabee's head as it did Bush's. But I can't see big changes coming from a Huckabee white house, and certainly not the big changes in federalism and size of government that Paul would bring.
To learn more about Ron Paul, visit his website.
Sources:
Wikipedia article on GWB's 2000 presidential campaign
Mike Huckabee issues page
Huckabee's opinion on torture
Transcript of October 9 Republican debate
3 comments:
On illegal immigration, Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Tom Tancredo. He has compared illegal aliens to slaves brought here in chains from Africa, saying, "I think frankly the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before."
Toward that end, when an Arkansas legislator introduced a bill that would prevent illegal aliens from voting and receiving state benefits, Huckabee denounced the bill, saying it would rile up "those who are racist and bigots."
He also made the insane point that companies like Toyota would not invest in Arkansas if the state didn't allow non-citizens to vote because it would "send the message that, essentially, 'If you don't look like us, talk like us and speak like us, we don't want you.'"
Like all the (other) Democratic candidates for president, he supports a federal law to ban smoking -- unless you're an illegal alien smoking at a Toyota plant. (I just realized why Mike Huckabee can't run for president as a Democrat -- they've already got Mike Gravel.)
Huckabee also joined with impeached president Bill Clinton in a campaign against childhood obesity. What, O.J. wasn't available?
Bill and Mike's excellent adventure lasted about one week in May 2005 -- or just long enough to burnish the image of the president who committed perjury and obstruction of justice in a civil rights suit against him, molested the help and was credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick.
Huckabee teamed up with that guy to talk to children about healthy eating habits. Ironically, the obesity campaign kicked off almost exactly nine years from the very Palm Sunday on which President Clinton used a cigar as a sexual aid on Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. - Ann Coulter
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2006/12/15/huckabees-second-chance-doctrine/
I'd have to say the linking of Huckabee with Clinton's misdeeds is a cheap shot - politicians campaign for causes with their political opponents all the time. It only means they endorse a specific cause, and ending childhood obesity is a worthy one.
And considering your inflammatory rhetoric in that second half of your comment, I'm guessing you aren't giving all the facts about the Arkansas bill he vetoed, either. I personally think that bigots and overprotectionists have brought a lot of baggage to the common-sense idea of reducing illegal immigration.
To clarify, I'm not calling you a bigot or overprotectionist.
Post a Comment